DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646.

176 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Flowers also asserts that the district court’s to explain its decision to limit impeachment by reference to an unspecified felony conviction, improperly negates the Jones analysis.
  • State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (4) the importance of the 3 defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.’” (alteration in original) ().
  • State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    But due to the similarity of the prior sexual-assault conviction to the charges in this case
  • Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
  • Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
    We have recognized that “any felony conviction is probative of a witness’s credibility,” (emphasis omitted), and Hooper does not argue that L.J.’s prior convictions were inadmissible at the hearing.
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
    "We have held, in rare cases, that the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the 'errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant's prejudice by producing a biased jury.’ " ().
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
    We have held that “any felony conviction is probative of a witness’s credibility” because it allows the fact-finder to see the whole person and his “general lack of respect for the law.” -52 (Minn.2011).
  • State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
    “When a defendant fails to object to an alleged error at trial, we review for plain error.”
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
    were only compounded by the district court’s no-adverse-inference instruction.” We have held, in rare cases, that the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the “errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Appellate courts “will not reverse a district court’s ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
    “When a defendant fails to object to an alleged error at trial, we review for plain error.”
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
    (examining whether the State emphasized allegedly erroneous evidence in closing arguments in determining whether the alleged error was harmless).